• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Cases on provocation

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Cases on Provocation R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193, CA Two brothers D1 and D2 were jointly charged with the murder of their father, who had seriously ill-treated the younger D2 over a period of eight years while D1 was away from home. Allowing their appeal and substituting a manslaughter verdict, the Court of Appeal said the jury should have been told to consider the father's words and deeds towards D2 when deciding whether or not D1 had been provoked, particularly since D1 had returned home deliberately to protect D2 from his father's violence. Similarly, the courts had tried in earlier cases to lay down exactly what conduct could and what could not amount to provocation, but the Act set these precedents aside. The defendant can claim provocation where the supposedly provocative behaviour is not unlawful or unreasonable, or where he is mistaken (perhaps through voluntary intoxication) as to the meaning of the other person's behaviour, or even where the supposedly provocative behaviour was in fact a response to his own. R v Davies [1975] 1 All ER 890, CA A man D became jealous of his wife W's association with another man S, and threatened to kill him. ...read more.

Middle

On Wednesday DD and A planned to beat up V the following Sunday and break his arms and legs; this plan was duly carried out, and V died of his injuries. The trial judge withdrew the defence of provocation from the jury, there having been no evidence of any provocative behaviour during the week or at the time of V's death, and DD's conviction was upheld. R v Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306, CA After several years of physical and mental cruelty D stabbed and killed her husband and was charged with murder. The trial judge directed the jury that the loss of self-control must have been sudden for provocation to be found, and that a response after D had "cooled down" could not give rise to this defence. D's conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. [A second appeal based on new evidence was subsequently allowed.] R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, CA D had entered into an "arranged marriage" and had been very badly treated by her husband. He had been violent and abusive towards her; he had threatened to kill her and had once tried to run her down; and he had taunted her about his affair with another woman. ...read more.

Conclusion

But in determining (in the language of s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957) "whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did" the jury must consider the effect of that provocation on a person of the same age and sex as the defendant, but with ordinary powers of self-control. In some cases (such as Morhall) that might mean a glue-sniffer with ordinary powers of self-control, but the jury should not at this point take into account any individual peculiarities such as mental abnormality (which can be more appropriately dealt with through a defence of diminished responsibility) or intoxication. R v James, R v Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14 Dismissing two conjoined appeals by defendants convicted of murder, a five-judge Court of Appeal said it is the decision of the Privy Council in Holley, rather than that of the House of Lords in Morgan Smith, that is now to be followed as a correct statement of English law. Although in all normal circumstances the Court of Appeal is bound to follow a decision of the House of Lords (and is not bound to follow decisions of the Privy Council), the circumstances surrounding the decision in Holley were exceptional, and even the three members in the minority in that case had accepted that the majority decision settled the matter for England as well as for Jersey. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Again the contractual grounds for a claim were looked at. Negligence occurs within several sectors of sport. It could occur between the participators, the spectators, the referee or a mixture of all of these, and it must be established who is responsible for the tort, and if any damages can be claimed.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    doing and his intoxication had brought on a psychopathic state so at the time he murdered his wife he was insane. The House of Lords held that as he had intended to kill his wife even before becoming drunk the intent has still been formed.

  1. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    The other type is Tort of negligence; this is considered the unintentional tort. Negligent torts are actions that violated the standard duty of care that cause a unexpected or unintended injury to a person. Negligence and Tort Law In negligent tort claims there are four elements which must be proven by the claimant.

  2. Separation of Power

    Since 1966, the Practice Statement has allowed the House of Lords (HoL) to change the law if they believe that earlier case was wrongly decided to avoid injustice. They have done almost 30 occasions including the first use in a criminal case (Shivipuri (1986)

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    The victim, a Jehovah's Witness, refused and consequently died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. So, the abnormality here was the fact that the deceased was a Jehovah's Witness. To be frank, I do not care for the decision. In any event, you can see clearly that an abnormality can break the chain of causation - here, the girl's

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    This dissertation from www.coursework.info However, there exist a further two situations where motive is almost indistinguishable from intention; first, in s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and second, in the offence of burglary, where the requisite mens rea is both the intention to enter another's house without permission and (the ulterior intent or motive)

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    It is therefore incorrect to say that someone has been prosecuted for negligence, or found guilty of libel, as these terms relate to the criminal law. There are, however, some areas in which the distinctions are blurred. In some tort cases, damages may be set at a high rate in

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    However, further to this it is reasonable to expect the negligent party to have been able to foresee that their act would be negligent, this was established in Bourhill v. Young (1943) and King v. Phillips (1953) both these cases established that the duty of care must be "foreseeable".

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work